New SU14 Beta client released. 1.35.19.0 SR22T Included

[Tuskin38 6,635]

31 minutes ago, Vitold69 said:

For what on Earth Xbox users need complex planes

For the same reason we have them on PC.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Tuskin38

[lwt1971 7,457]

1 hour ago, MrFuzzy said:

Potato PCs are a very small minority among MSFS players. Never heard of anyone trying to run MSFS with 8 GB of RAM and a Ryzen 1200 and anyway they wouldn't be in a position to complain, because the minimum declared specs imply only that the game will work (at low settings) without any warranty of a decent experience. 

Then again, it is JORG NEUMANN that talked about memory limitations on XBox (not on PC). A PC with a GPU has RAM and VRAM, the XBox has shared memory only.

All fair points, I guess the key question here is does MS/Asobo test with and give equal importance to PCs of equivalent hardware capabilities to XBox-S (given that they support PCs lower than that even), or not. I'd think they surely do, as would any major software/game developer. Could it be that a problem manifesting on XBox-S is more important to them than an equally or lower spec'd PC, and then therefore hold up an add-on's release due to that? Possibly.. but IMHO that's unlikely.

Also you keep agreeing that the sim will work at lower settings on lower-end PCs without any warranty of a decent experience, and that's very true. My point here is that for XBox-S that is similar.. i.e. MS have capped MSFS on XBox-S to 30fps and 1080p, and have hardcoded the visual settings accordingly. XBox-S users can't expect more of an experience than that (MS publicly state that's the max MSFS can do on XBox-S so users of that particular machine know what they're getting). So, this does not mean MSFS is being held back on higher-end PCs (or XBox-X even) due to XBox-S does it.

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by lwt1971

[orchestra_nl 957]

On 11/29/2023 at 10:16 PM, MattNischan said:

This plane replaces the SR22 G5 with the SR22T G6 directly, Premium Deluxe is still required.

After upgrading, the G5 is removed but there is no G6 to be found on my system.

When checking I notice that a number of items from the Premium upgrade are suddenly "not installed". After installing the SR22T it shows up but in My Hangar I can only see the interior. The exterior is visually missing from the aircraft. It's like an aircraft with just the seats and dashboard but no fuselage nor wings:

Update: after loading it in the simulator, it looks the same on the ramp: just an interior hovering above the ground.

EDIT: seems this has been mentioned in the official forums too. Seems the "get rid of those white boxes" addon could cause this, which I indeed had installed.

Edited December 1, 2023 by orchestra_nl

[Redge 245]

Again, I suspect very much that it has to do instead with this, rather than the reason given:

https://fsnews.eu/flybywire-developer-accuses-inibuilds-of-code-theft/

[JRBarrett 3,128]

1 hour ago, Vitold69 said:

Absolutely! And btw FBW had a contract with Asobo/MS for this plane. This means plane as intellectual property fully belongs to Asobo/MS. It's not FBW ..... business anymore. 

The more Jorg and his gang is trying to hide the real reasons the more it smells fishy. There is one good point though. It means Xbox users will not slow down future projects as many believe here.

For what on Earth Xbox users need complex planes? They have to enjoy Reno races. 🤪

Fly By Wire (FBW) is an independent third-party developer. They produced a series of freeware enhancements to the default A320. All of their mods are completely open source and downloadable at no cost from their own website. Their product(s) are installed in the community folder.

FBW is not directly associated with Asobo or Microsoft and not under any kind of contract to either company.

IniBuilds is a payware developer. They produce airports and aircraft for both MSFS and XPlane which they sell to end-users through their own store front.

in addition to their own stand-alone business, they are contractors for Microsoft for two products: the A310 that came out last year, and an A320 that was slated for inclusion in SU14.

MSFS end users do not have to purchase either the IniBuilds A310 or A320 - both are included for free as part of default MSFS. However, they are also “payware” in the sense that Microsoft undoubtedly paid IniBuilds to create both of these aircraft.

There is an allegation that IniBuilds may have used some code from the freeware FBW A320 in their new Airbus. From a legal standpoint, that is perfectly acceptable. The FBW project is completely open source, licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL literally requires that all of the source code for any GPL project be publicly posted so that any other developer can “borrow” as little or as much of the code as they want. If IniBuilds did in fact do this, they have done absolutely nothing wrong from a legal standpoint. FBW has no “intellectual property rights” of any kind to any code they created under the GPL.

But - if IniBuilds used any GPL code in their new A320, then the source code for the entire A320 becomes subject to the terms of the GPL, meaning it must be published so that other developers can use it.

Microsoft/Asobo, who paid IniBuilds for the A320, probably does not want the source code to the aircraft to become public open source. If IniBuilds did use any GPL code in their project, Microsoft would probably want it removed so that the aircraft will remain closed source and proprietary.

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by JRBarrett

[MarcG 3,033]

1 hour ago, Redge said:

Again, I suspect very much that it has to do instead with this, rather than the reason given:

https://fsnews.eu/flybywire-developer-accuses-inibuilds-of-code-theft/

Who's their parent company? Rennsport? 👀 

(Rhetorical/Facetious question no need to answer, car racing Sim fans will know what I'm on about 😋)

[Tuskin38 6,635]

1 hour ago, Redge said:

Again, I suspect very much that it has to do instead with this, rather than the reason given:

https://fsnews.eu/flybywire-developer-accuses-inibuilds-of-code-theft/

I doubt it.

[JYW 2,990]

It's really none of our (the community's) business.  @JRBarrett has posted the most sensible, accurate post on this latst 'FS scandal' so far.  None of this is a question of FBW suing INI for 'damages'. It's about whether INI's (potential) use of the GPL-derived code, requires the entire A320 code to be published as open source.

That is probably an unacceptable outcome for MS.  For INI it doesn't make any discernible difference.

No-one is suing anyone else as part of this scenario.   It's just a case of how MS want to strategically handle a matter that could leave them obliged to make some proprietary code (made for them under contract by INI), open source.

I'd guess (yes, an absolute guess!) three things:-

1). The INI A320 will back in due course
2). The code that was used from the FBW's GPL code will have been replaced
3). There will be no public statements of any type about this matter - because they are not needed

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by JYW